223
submitted 9 months ago by mateomaui@reddthat.com to c/news@lemmy.world

Meta has received more than 1.1 million reports of users under the age of 13 on its Instagram platform since early 2019 yet it “disabled only a fraction” of those accounts, according to a newly unsealed legal complaint against the company brought by the attorneys general of 33 states.

Instead, the social media giant “routinely continued to collect” children’s personal information, like their locations and email addresses, without parental permission, in violation of a federal children’s privacy law, according to the court filing. Meta could face hundreds of millions of dollars, or more, in civil penalties should the states prove the allegations.

all 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world 43 points 9 months ago

I mean no shit? Everyone knows kids will lie about their age to sign up for something. 99% of kids born after the internet got popular have lied about their age. Everyone knows they do it.

[-] mateomaui@reddthat.com 19 points 9 months ago

The point is they knew about it and didn’t remove them from the platform while saying the opposite.

[-] interceder270@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

How did they know about it?

[-] ugh@lemm.ee 7 points 9 months ago

People reported the accounts

[-] interceder270@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

Are all reports legitimate?

[-] ugh@lemm.ee 6 points 9 months ago

That's up to Meta to figure out, but probably not. Obviously they ignored many legitimate reports if the problem has escalated this far. It's their responsibility to sift through user reports to find the valid ones, then take action.

[-] mateomaui@reddthat.com -1 points 9 months ago

It literally says why in the first sentence I copied from the article.

[-] interceder270@lemmy.world -3 points 9 months ago

Lol, you're being weirdly hostile to me for no reason.

Are all reports legitimate?

[-] mateomaui@reddthat.com 6 points 9 months ago

I responded to this before the other one, and I find it ignorant when someone asks a question that’s already answered in the first sentence.

[-] ubermeisters@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Maybe in fact you're weirdly playing devils advocate for a pedophelia ring,

[-] Patches@sh.itjust.works 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

As someone who lied as a child to get in free (kids under 5 free) and who had a beard in high school so he could buy beer. All before the Internet.

This isn't a "new quirky Internet Age". People have been lying about their age since time immemorial.

[-] Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 9 months ago

I was surprised this was about Instagram and not their VR platform where children are regularly experiencing wildly inappropriate situations and straight up pedophiles.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

I don't know about Instagram, but you can get on their VR platform officially at age 13 (when you can also get a Facebook account) and you can easily get a parent to hook it up to their Facebook account instead.

13 is way too young for Facebook. Sure, savvy kids will still find a way to get on, but we are not doing enough to protect kids. And I don't mean in a bullshit, dangerous KOSA way.

[-] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago

Aw, geez! How did all these minors get onto our platform? After we have done literally nothing to prevent it or make any impediment whatsoever? How could we have possibly known unless we used the detailed granular data that we collect on all of our users from sneaker preference to private health data, which we literally use every second of every day?

[-] ubermeisters@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

All we can hope to do is gather up all the information we can on them while not talking about it so we can better understand the situation.

[-] Coach@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

could face hundreds of millions of dollars, or more, in civil penalties

...while making billions in profit and grooming a generation of users to clear trillions in profits over the next few years. Seems like the calculated cost of doing business.

[-] roguetrick@kbin.social 10 points 9 months ago

Of course we aren't marketing cigarettes to kids.

[-] Kraven_the_Hunter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 9 months ago

I might believe you a little if you weren't dressed as a cartoon camel as you said that.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I was in an antique store with my daughter and we saw a cigarette tin with Joe Camel on it and she didn't believe me when I said it was a way they marketed cigarettes to kids. She didn't even understand why Joe Camel appealed to kids. I guess it's a different age.

[-] qevlarr@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

So much of an open secret that this isn't even news

[-] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 8 points 9 months ago

Wow. Shocking that a company that’s free to use and thus traffics in user data, selling it to advertisers and who knows who else would want to get data of the most vulnerable, least savvy people they can find.

Oh, let’s not forget that whatever price they’re charging for legitimate advertisers is the same any well-funded paedophiles can pay. Facebook ads aren’t terribly expensive.

Yeah, this is my shocked face.

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

Of course.

My kids use the Quest headset. I made them their own accounts, underage, because I didn’t want their games and Headset on my account. Their friends are mostly the same with their own FB/meta accounts.

It’s stupid because they force you to have a Facebook account to use the headset. TF did they think was gonna happen. And that’s just headset gamers, not kids that want to use instagram, messenger, or FB itself.

[-] pushECX@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

This may have changed recently, but I just bought the Quest 3 and wasn’t forced to create a Facebook account. I did have to create a Meta account, though. As far as I can tell, it’s fairly separate from Facebook and Instagram and I have no intentions of linking it to either of those types of accounts.

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

That’s good to know. I know they did switch from FB to Meta, but nonetheless I think the age limit is 13(?) to have your own account, and ours were 10 and 8 when I set them up. Still underage.

[-] init@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago

Click "OK" to certify you are over 13 and you have parental consent before we allow you to use our services

How did they think this would turn out?

[-] ubermeisters@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Loads more data and inflated legitimate userbase numbers would bring more ad revenue to the platform. And I bet it has. And whatever they get fined for this, will be paltry in comparison to the amount they made from this.

[-] ubermeisters@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

Won't someone think of the kids(data)??

-meta

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

No one has to work at Faceboot. It isn't like Walmart or something. People getting jobs there are very qualified. I think this needs to get mentioned more. People with a choose are choosing to work for a shit evil company.

[-] interceder270@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Eh, I immediately stop caring when the reporter says "only a fraction." What the fuck is that? 99/100 is "only a fraction."

[-] mateomaui@reddthat.com 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

And? Your interpretation of the phrase isn’t common, and no one cares that you don’t care.

Edit: also, it’s not the reporter’s phrasing, they’re quoting the legal complaint by 33 states, hence the quotation marks.

Here, for your reading pleasure

https://coag.gov/app/uploads/2023/10/23.10.24-Doc.-1-Complaint-People-v.-Meta-23cv05448.pdf

[-] interceder270@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Why the hostility? My point is that 'just a fraction' is a useless metric and we should focus on specifics.

They should be sharing what number of the accounts are banned so we have a clearer picture of the issue.

[-] mateomaui@reddthat.com 1 points 9 months ago

“Just a fraction” implies it’s a small fraction, usually less than half, and certainly not 99/100. You’re choosing to be dismissive to a ridiculous degree, and implied that just because a reporter said it that it should be dismissed, when their presentation indicates otherwise. If you want to be needlessly ignorant about it, I cannot stop you.

[-] interceder270@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

What is a small fraction? Lol, it's crazy watching you insult me while defending people who just want to take advantage of your ignorance.

If they have enough information to determine it's a 'small fraction,' they should just share that fraction so everyone has a better idea of what's going on.

Banning 'less than half' of accounts reported is completely reasonable, considering how many fake reports are generated. But we don't know what 'fraction' of the accounts were banned because the people who filed the report purposefully used vague language.

If that doesn't set off alarm bells in your head, it's because you're easily manipulated. Sorry you're so proud to defend it.

[-] Additional_Prune@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

"hundreds of millions of dollars"--sigh, how much? We'll write you a check.

this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2023
223 points (94.8% liked)

News

22831 readers
4156 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS